Critical Success Factors Over Lifecycle of Dam Engineering Projects

Abstract

Despite significant efforts on improving project performance through research on project success, this area of research still has unfinished nature. This suggests further work is needed to enable introduction of effective project success improvement models. This is even of more importance for dams with significant social, economic and environmental impacts. Despite evidence in the literature that dam engineering projects are one of the worst performing infrastructure types for achieving project goals, no study has been undertaken to address this issue. This paper addresses the knowledge gap by identification of critical success factors (CSFs) in different phases over lifecycle of dams. This study reveals that certain CSFs are applicable in different stages over lifecycle of dam engineering projects in Australia. This has been achieved by undertaking a three round Delphi technique. As a result, ‘Effective communication’ was ranked the most important factor in planning and operation phases, while highest rated factors for design and construction phases were ‘Adequate understanding of natural characteristics of the project’ and ‘Monitor performance’ respectively. The results of this study give project practitioners and decision-makers the ability to influence dam engineering project outcomes in a way that benefits stakeholders, impacted communities, and local economies.

Keywords:

• Engineering management success
• critical success factors
• dam engineering
• project lifecycle
• Delphi technique

EMJ Focus Area:

• Program & Project Management

Introduction

Identification of what constitutes project success is a complicated and multi-dimensional matter. It depends on perception of different project parties, varies based on the project type, and changes in different phases over project lifecycle. Identification and determination of a set of critical success factors (CSFs) of projects are important for project performance improvement and reduce the complexity associated with defining what contributes to project success. Project managers would be able to improve the project success rates and decrease risks by identifying and exploring CSFs (Camilleri, 2011). Erling et al. (2006) emphasized on importance of CSFs and stated that if they “are not present or taken into consideration, problems will be experienced which may act as barriers to success.”

Underperformance of dams has long been a challenge for such projects. The dam engineering projects have significantly underperformed as a result of unexpectedly high costs and missed social, environmental, and economic goals (Everard, 2013; World Commission on Dams, 2000). Ansar et al. (2014) conducted a study on the performance of dam engineering projects based on the most extensive economic analysis yet conducted on large dams. According to their study, there are schedule overruns of 44% on average for dam engineering projects in 8 out of 10 projects. The study also demonstrated 96% mean cost overrun for dams, which highlights the severity of not meeting project goals when compared to cost overruns of other project types, such as highways (20%), bridges and tunnels (34%) and mining (14%). Numerous other studies and sources have provided evidence of unsatisfactory performance of dam engineering projects around the world (e.g. Awojobi & Jenkins, 2016; Baurzhan et al., 2021; Callegari et al., 2018). Australian dam engineering projects face the same issues as the rest of the world, with some of the most significant recently built dams exceeding budget. This raises concerns about the viability of these projects (Bulk Water Alliance, 2015; Stewart, 2016). Petheram and McMahon (2019) found large cost overruns for Australian dams, which is consistent with studies conducted in other parts of the world. Their research found that Australian dam engineering projects’ median and mean cost overruns were 49% and 120%, respectively.

This paper is a step forward to address decades-long unsatisfactory performance this industry has been suffering. First, the concept and historical development of project success factors are presented in this paper. Then a set of candidate critical success factors (CCSFs) are introduced as the outcome of systematic literature review. A Delphi survey used the identified CCSFs as input to identify critical ones in various project phases. The findings of the Delphi study, together with an analysis of the findings using statistical methods, are reported in this paper. The conclusion and suggestions for further research are offered after data analysis and a thorough discussion of the findings.

Research Design

This paper identifies CSFs for projects in the Australian dam engineering industry. Dams, with their significant socioeconomic impact, are vital for local communities as well as for the economies at both the local and national levels. This study, which focuses across the project lifecycle, including planning, design, construction, and operation, offers significant new information on the success of dam engineering projects. A set of critical success factors (CSFs) are provided for each project phase based on previously identified CCSFs in the literature and inputs from dam engineering senior experts. The research focuses on the Australian dam industry, and data from Australian practitioners (such as design engineers, operators, and project managers) involved in dam projects were acquired. The CCSFs extracted from the literature were taken to a Delphi survey which enabled identifying the ones that can be applied to different stages over lifecycles of such projects. The Delphi technique, through establishment of an expert panel, provides a flexible and adaptable tool to gather the required data to answer the research question:

What are the CSFs over lifecycle of dam engineering projects in Australia?

All projects go through different stages turning a project into a product. Dam engineering projects normally go through feasibility studies as a starting point of project planning. World Bank definition (Mazzei et al., 2011) for different phases of dam engineering projects development is widely accepted and hence is used in our study. According to this definition, dam projects include Planning, Design, Construction and Operation phases over their lifecycle with the descriptions as presented in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1. Phases of dam engineering projects according to the World Bank (Mazzei et al., 2011)

Project phase	Description
Planning	This phase is about needs analysis and identification of initiatives and projects that may meet the identified needs. This is achieved by developing a range of options for implementing the most economically, socially and environmentally viable options.
Design	This phase includes technical analysis up to design and approval and financial arrangements. Field studies such as geotechnical work and testing are undertaken as well as surveying. This phase produces and uses detailed data and information needed for dam design.
Construction	During this phase, the physical process of implementation work is carried out on the dam and/or associated structures. This phase of the dam project puts into action all the findings and results of the previous phase.
Operation	At this phase, the project reaches the final development phase. The project begins to serve its users and community as planned. The results of the overall project implementation will be made available as project product.

A research design is a strategy for methodically gathering, evaluating, and debating pertinent data during an investigation. Quantitative research methods are the most suitable approach for the research design when the goal of a research is to investigate elements that influence outcomes (Creswell, 2014). Data is gathered numerically for quantitative research, and the conclusions are based on statistical analysis. Quantitative research enables for the interpretation of data-embedded information (Mertens, 2017) since it allows data to be summarized in meaningful and sensible statistical findings (Williamson & Johanson, 2017). We adopted quantitative research since it is a widespread and popular method for investigating various aspects of project success (Lamprou & Vagiona, 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Wuni et al., 2021).

In this study, the identification of CSFs is accomplished through quantitative analysis, relying on ratings provided by senior experts for each project phase. The research process consists of six main stages as shown in Exhibit 2. First, previous definitions of success factors were found by studying the literature. Then a systematic literature analysis was undertaken to find CCSFs for dams based on success factors of closely related infrastructure types. The examination of the data that had been gathered at this point produced a set of candidate success factors. Then, a Delphi method was designed based on the identified list of the CCSFs to allow rating them using a five-point Likert scale. Three rounds of Delphi were conducted, with participants who all had extensive backgrounds in the field of dam engineering. Participants were requested to rate CCSFs and consensus among the experts was sought on which of the CCSFs are critical for success in each project phase. This was accomplished by analyzing the participant ratings provided for each CCSF and by establishing a consensus threshold.

Exhibit 2. Research Process

Literature Review

Project Success in Engineering Management

Our understanding of success in engineering management has changed over time. Hughes et al. (2004) defined success as meeting cost, schedule, performance, and safety objectives. In another definition Kerzner (2014, p. 46) defined project success as “achieving a desired business value within the competing constraints.” Walker (2015, p. 311) stressed the importance of stakeholder satisfaction particularly project clients in determining project success and stated that a project’s success is based on “the difference between the client’s expectation at the beginning of the project and its satisfaction at completion.” Engineering management success is a concept with multiple dimensions (Smith-Doerr et al., 2004).

An engineering project’s success depends on a level of project complexity (Luo et al., 2017) and simply put, is determined by the aggregate of the deliverables from activities that make up the project (Jaafar et al., 2022). In engineering management context, project success rates are essentially dependent on proper implementation of scope management, schedule adherence, and stakeholder engagement (Ramage, 2018). Cooke-Davis (2002) asserts that project success remains a major priority from a scientific standpoint. The notion of project success is convoluted, subject to individual interpretation, imprecise, and extremely context-dependent (Jugdev & Müller, 2005). Researchers would face a significant problem as a result of this uncertainty, as there is growing criticism of research on project management in general and project success in particular (Söderlund, 2004). According to Ika (2009, p. 7) “the only thing that is certain in project management is that success is an ambiguous, inclusive, and multidimensional concept whose definition is bound to a specific context.”

Project Success Factors

When Rubin and Seelig (1967) studied project managers’ experience as a selection and performance evaluation criterion, they first proposed the idea of success factors. Lim and Mohamed (1999, p. 243) defined factors for project success as “the set of circumstances, facts, or influences which contribute to the project outcomes” and can either assist or impede project success but cannot serve as the basis for evaluation and measurement of project success. Project success factors are independent variables of projects that can be influenced to increase likelihood of successfully completing projects (Khan et al., 2013; Turner, 2009). Cooke-Davies (2007, p. 99) defined project success factors as “those inputs to the management system that lead directly to the success of the project.”

Numerous scholars have attempted to identify and explain variables that are critical and significant for predicting and achieving success. It was first Rockart (1979) who introduced CSFs concept as:

The limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization. They are the few key areas where things must go right for the business to flourish.

Ferguson and Dickinson (1982) stated that CSFs require special attention from project managers since they have significant impact on corporate or project activities. They concluded that CSFs can be identified by “evaluating corporate strategy, environment, resources and operations” (Ferguson & Dickinson, 1982, p. 15). They must be taken into account when managing projects to prevent troublesome surprises and missed project objectives. Leidecker and Bruno (1984, p. 24) defined CSFs as:

Those characteristics, conditions, or variables that when properly sustained, maintained, or managed can have a significant impact on the success of a firm competing in a particular industry.

According to Boynton and Zmud (1984), CSFs are those few elements in a project that must go well to ensure positive and successful outcome. CSFs are areas that require extra attention in order to achieve high project performance. Pinto and Slevin (1987, p. 22) regarded CSFs as “factors which, if addressed, significantly improve project implementation chances.” CSFs vary in different phases of a project lifecycle (Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Pinto & Prescott, 1988). In order to define CSFs, it is necessary to specify each aspect that contributes to successful project management (Cooke-Davis, 2002).

Morris (2013) stated that CSFs are associated with project performance in terms of delivery function. CSFs can be used to focus on the urgent and most pressing project issues and can improve project management efficiency (Clarke, 1999). The notion of CSFs depends on perception of individuals working on a project. It has become challenging for project managers in various industries to use CSFs in their projects as a result of the large number of CSFs that have been presented for projects over the past decades (Ghaffari, 2014). The CSFs of other industries are not relevant to projects in the dam engineering projects. They need their own CSFs because of dams industry’s particular complexity; and economic, social and environmental impacts (Larsen et al., 2014).

Another study of CSFs by Fortune and White (2006) revealed that there are different perspectives among authors and researchers regarding factors that affect project success. Their research highlights three key factors: the significance of the project for top management, the need for realistic project goals, and the presence of an effective plan. One of their most intriguing discoveries is that although lists of sets of success factors compiled by many academics and authors sometimes overlap the most critical ones chosen by each author differ greatly. They also highlighted the main tactic that have been introduced for the approach of CSFs definition; “that the inter-relationships between factors are at least as important as the individual factors but the CSFs approach does not provide a mechanism for taking account of these inter-relationships” (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 54).

Results of the Systematic Literature Review

The systematic review of the literature conducted by the authors (Amies et al., 2023) on project success factors revealed that twenty-eight factors are the candidate factors for success of dam engineering projects. The systematic literature review was conducted using the steps recommended by Xiao and Watson (2017) that includes: (1) formulating the research problem; (2) developing the review protocol; (3) searching the literature; (4) screening for inclusion; (5) assessing quality; (6) extracting data; (7) analyzing and synthesizing data; and (8) reporting the findings. 1,582 primary studies were reviewed, out of which 89 articles were chosen to extract 28 CCSFs. The list of CCSFs and some major references are presented in Exhibit 3. The identified CCSFs were taken to a Delphi study to explore their criticality over lifecycle of Australian dam engineering projects.

Exhibit 3. CCSFs list and some major references from the systematic literature review

	CCSFs	Some major references
F1	Top management support	Alashwal et al. (2017); Alfaiz et al. (2021); Al-Juboori et al. (2021); R. Ahmed and Azmi Bin Mohamad (2016)
F2	Project manager capabilities and commitment	Amoah et al. (2021); Butković (2021); Cepeda et al. (2018)
F3	Effective communication	Anilkumar and Banerji (2021); Awwad et al. (2020); Cepeda et al. (2018)
F4	Adequate risk analysis, management and sharing	Y. Ahmed and Sipan (2019); Dithebe et al. (2019); Ghanbaripour et al. (2020); Buzzetto and Monteiro de Carvalho (2022)
F5	Build trust and transparency between project parties	Yong and Mustaffa (2013); Simon et al. (2020); Sang and Yao (2019)
F6	Early engagement with stakeholders and community	Ozorhon and Cinar (2015); Sang and Yao (2019); Simon et al. (2020)
F7	Innovation	Tang et al. (2020); Wai et al. (2013); Janipha et al. (2021)
F8	Proper training	Hsueh and Chang (2017); Jung et al. (2021); Kuwaiti et al. (2018)
F9	Build competent project team	Ghanbaripour et al. (2020); Hsueh and Chang (2017); Jung et al. (2021)
F10	Authority of the Project Manager	Mathar et al. (2020); Pham et al. (2019); Ozorhon and Cinar (2015)
F11	Monitor performance	Amoah et al. (2021); Butković (2021); Jha and Iyer (2006)
F12	Adequate Resources	Janipha et al. (2021); Koutsikouri et al. (2008); Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh (2018)
F13	Realistic cost, benefit and time estimates	Kahwajian et al. (2014); Kuwaiti et al. (2018); Mukhtar et al. (2017)
F14	Adequate change management	Ozorhon and Cinar (2015); Ghanbaripour et al. (2020); Kuwaiti et al. (2018)
F15	Political support	Hsueh and Chang (2017); Kahwajian et al. (2014); Li et al. (2005)
F16	Public support	Kahwajian et al. (2014); Kavishe and Chileshe (2019); Sehgal and Dubey (2019)
F17	Stable economic condition	Youneszadeh et al. (2020); Kahwajian et al. (2014); Kuwaiti et al. (2018)
F18	Effective problem solving	Ghanbaripour et al. (2020); El Touny et al. (2021); Butković (2021)
F19	Clear definition of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities	Y. Ahmed and Sipan (2019); Cepeda et al. (2018); Chou and Pramudawardhani (2015)
F20	Teamwork and collaboration	Amoah et al. (2021); Cepeda et al. (2018); Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014)
F21	Favorable weather condition	Cepeda et al. (2018); Chou and Pramudawardhani (2015); Ghanbaripour et al. (2020)
F22	Clear scope definition	Nguyen (2019); Obi et al. (2021); Cepeda et al. (2018)
F23	Up to date technology utilization	Janipha et al. (2021); Koutsikouri et al. (2008); Kuwaiti et al. (2018)
F24	Sound policy, regulatory and legal framework	Hsueh and Chang (2017); Kahwajian et al. (2014); Kavishe and Chileshe (2019)
F25	Knowledge sharing	Alfaiz et al. (2021); Awwad et al. (2020); Koutsikouri et al. (2008); Emiliano de Souza et al. (2022)
F26	Proper incentives and motivation	Famakin et al. (2012); Mukhtar et al. (2017); Nguyen (2019)
F27	Effective dispute resolution	Hsueh and Chang (2017); Famakin et al. (2012); Dang and Le-Hoai (2016)
F28	Suitable project governance and organizational structure	Pham et al. (2019); Simon et al. (2020); Yu and Kwon (2011)

A total of 73 out of the 89 selected articles in the publication set are country specific. 16 articles are either on more than one country or not specific on a certain country. The list of countries spans all five continents, allowing this study to benefit from a range of sources for better and more thorough conclusions. The 89 articles in the publication collection have 47 articles with a construction industry focus. Projects related to housing, infrastructure, and building are each represented by 11, 6, and 3 articles, respectively.

There is a clear knowledge gap about CSFs for dam engineering projects, as no such study was discovered in the literature. There is no CSFs list for such projects, despite huge efforts by researchers on project success, and there is a lot of unknowns associated with success in management of dam engineering projects such as factors that contribute to success, success criteria and their relationships. This study’s inspiration came from these shortfalls and inadequacies. The study’s goal is to identify CSFs to assist with resolving engineering project management challenges and comprehending the success of dams.

Application of Delphi

The Delphi technique is a methodology for gathering group opinions on a subject where precise knowledge and sufficient historical evidence are lacking (Chalmers & Armour, 2019; Chan et al., 2001; Kirun & Varghese, 2015). This necessitates gathering unbiased subjective opinions from a collection of individuals that have in-depth knowledge and skill regarding the subject. In comparison with other consensus forming techniques such as Focus Group Discussion and Nominal Group Technique which usually require face to face meeting in a single session with difficulty of finding a time that suits everyone, Delphi technique provides more flexibility as it can be conducted by e-mail and is accessible to participants regardless of their locations (McMillan et al., 2016; Mukherjee et al., 2018).

The Delphi process entails obtaining responses in each round to analyze and present the results back to the participants for the subsequent round (Harteis, 2022; Naisola-Ruiter, 2022; Watson, 2008). The Delphi technique’s ability to draw relevant empirical data from first-hand knowledge is one of its most important features (Cheng, 2014). The Delphi approach is regarded to be a useful tool for reviewing and assessing project performance, and it has grown in popularity in construction and project management research (Müller & Turner, 2010). Another key feature of the Delphi procedure is that it involves conducting rounds of questionnaire surveys to bring participants to a consensus. To enable experts to analyze their responses, three rounds of Delphi surveys were conducted for this study. This included ratings of CCSFs determined from a systematic literature review and new CCSFs introduced by panel members. The Delphi technique is thought to be the most appropriate method for gathering input to the process of identifying relevant CSFs for various stages over lifecycle of dam engineering projects, given the absence of past research on the engineering management success of such projects.

It is popular and accepted practice to use the Delphi technique’s ability to generate consensus and to identify elements that affect the performance of infrastructure projects (Cheng, 2014; Gunduz & Yahya, 2015). Using the Delphi approach, Yu and Kwon (2011) identified factors affecting success of urban regeneration projects in Korea. Similar methodology was used by Mahamadu et al. (2019) to examine how building information modeling capabilities affect the success of construction projects in the United Kingdom. Youneszadeh et al. (2020) applied success factors identified through Delphi technique for project success prediction of residential building projects in Iran. Other more recent studies used a similar methodology for project success study (e.g. Chen et al., 2022; Youneszadeh et al., 2020). We were able to conclude from prior research that the approach we used for this study is well-established and is supported by the literature. We adopted Delphi technique because of its great practical relevance and ability to develop a thorough understanding of the research topic based on the knowledge of experts. Considering the fact that no such research on dams has been undertaken before and lack of academic research on success of dam projects, the Delphi technique serves a suitable tool to achieve consensus among experts and answer a relevant research question.

Ethical approval for this study has been granted by the Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number H13925). The Human Research Ethics Committee is constituted and operates in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government, 2018). Consent forms were sent via e-mail to the selected experts and the participants were given one week to decide and consider participation. They were provided with Participant Information Sheet that described research aim, purpose and type of information they would be asked during Delphi process.

The members of the Delphi panel were chosen based on their professional backgrounds, educational qualifications, and geographical dispersion ensuring that the panel included representatives from various Australian States and Territories. Representatives from several organizations, including dam owner agencies, consulting firms, contractors, regulatory agencies, and professional bodies, made up the expert panel. This is necessary to guarantee the reliability of the information gathered and the conclusions drawn from a fair distribution of the expertise and judgment of specialists in Australia’s dam industry. One of the panel members served as the initial pilot run for the Delphi questionnaire.

All potential expert panel members were approached directly to ascertain their interest in participating in the study and to determine if they met the following criteria:

• Over ten years of experience mainly in dam engineering projects in Australia

• Having had the role of senior engineer or project manager role

• Willing to take part in the entire Delphi process

• Willingness to share their ideas

All experts have sufficient experience in dam engineering projects and have hold senior positions in their organizations. The majority of the panel’s members, 14, have bachelor’s degrees, followed by 9 members with master’s degrees and 1 member with PhD degree. This demonstrates the panel’s high level of academic qualification. Around 95% of the panelists have worked on more than 10 dam engineering projects in Australia, and 22 out of 24 panel members have more than 20 years of expertise. Therefore, the panel is seen as being highly suited to provide information to the Delphi questionnaire targeted at the Australian dam engineering industry. The panel’s experience in Australia is distributed across the country including all of its states and territories, demonstrating that they have knowledge on dams in every region of Australia.

A letter of instructions comprising a summary of the research’s goal, methodology, and research questions was sent to the panel members. In three rounds of the Delphi technique, respondents were asked to rank CCSFs in order to assess how critical they are in each phase of dam engineering projects in Australia. An explanatory note was appended to each CCSFs to present a definition for them. The respondents were allowed to add any potential CCSFs that they believed were appropriate and should be listed. The participants were asked additional questions about their role, organization, years of experience, and accomplishments. For each project phase, the panelists were asked to provide answer to the following question:

• From your experience in Australian Dam Engineering projects, to what extent do you agree that the following success factors are critical in different phases of such projects?

The participants received the questionnaire through e-mail on the same day and time for each round. When the results of each round were received, they were examined and analyzed to send a summary of results back to the participants along with the questionnaire for the following round. Before deciding on their updated rating for the round, participants in each round were asked to check their initial responses and compare them with those of the other panel members.

The list of 28 CCSFs from the systematic literature review was included in the design of a Delphi questionnaire. The first section of the questionnaire asks about general information and the professional backgrounds of the respondents such as education and work experience. The second section presents a list of CCSFs, with survey participants being asked to assess their criticality in different phases of dam engineering projects. A 5-point scale with 5 being ‘Strongly Agree’ and 1 being ‘Strongly Disagree’ was adopted to capture panel perception on the criticality of each CCSF. Consensus was defined as when 80% of the panel agreed that CCSFs were critical and when their average response on a 5-point Likert scale was at least 4.

In the first round, in addition to the 28 CCSFs, the panel members were requested to list any additional CCSFs that they thought were applicable to dam engineering projects. A description of each CCSF and definition of project phases were also provided to the panel for their reference. The CCSFs were sufficiently described, thus there were no issues raised by the panel regarding their definitions. All 24 panel members responded to the 1^st round questionnaire. In the rounds 2 and 3, the panel members were asked to reconsider their response to the success factors that consensus was not reached in the previous round. In the 2^nd and 3^rd rounds, 20 and 17 experts from the panel responded to the questionnaire respectively. This Delphi process is thought to have a suitable number of experts to produce trustworthy outcomes.

Data Analysis and Discussions

Results of Three Rounds of Delphi Survey

The panel received the first-round questionnaire, which asked them to rate the CCSFs for each project phase and gave them the option of adding new ones to the list. The first-round questionnaire received responses from all 24 experts. Consensus was obtained on 13,17,19 and 9 factors in planning, design, construction and operation phases respectively, taking into account the cutoff point of 80% agreement or above and the average being 4 or above. The CCSFs for which a consensus could not be established were subsequently moved on to the following round. The panelists suggested adding 6 new CCSFs to the 28 identified from systematic literature review making a list of total 34 CCSFs. These were:

• ‘Adequate understanding of natural characteristics of the project (such as site condition, geotechnical, topography)’ (F29)

• ‘Adequate use of updated and detailed input data and information’ (F30)

• ‘Effective procurement management’ (F31)

• ‘Adequate recognition of long lifecycle of dams’ (F32)

• ‘Modern and adequate dam safety review processes’ (F33)

• ‘Adequate consideration of dam re-operational strategies’ (F34)

For the second round, the panel was provided with the results of the first round obtained from their ratings on the CCSFs. The CCSFs with consensus reached in the first round were marked as ‘Consensus reached’ and no more action was needed for them. For the ones that consensus was not reached in the first round, the respondents were asked to reevaluate their ratings considering the average of the panel’s ratings from the first round. A total of 20 completed questionnaire were received in the second round. Consensus was reached for 7, 6, 11 and 4 more CCSFs in planning, design, construction and operation phases respectively, making a total of 21, 23, 30 and 13 CSFs. In the third round, the panel were asked to reevaluate their responses in the 2^nd round based on the average of the panel response. The responses of the third round led to reaching panel consensus on criticality of additional 1,5,1 and 2 CCSFs for planning, design, construction, and operation phases respectively bringing the total for these phases’ CSFs to 22, 28, 31, and 15. The results of the questionnaire survey of the three rounds are presented in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5 shows the mean, standard deviation and number of panelists agreeing with criticality of CCSFs in each round of the Delphi. This made the 3 Delphi rounds enough for acquiring experts’ opinion on the criticality of CCSFs for different phases of dam engineering projects in Australia.

Exhibit 4. List of the CSFs selected for each project phase

	Success Factors	Planning	Design	Construction	Operation
F1	Top management support	✓	✓	✓	✓
F2	Project manager capabilities and commitment	✓	✓	✓
F3	Effective communication	✓	✓	✓	✓
F4	Adequate risk analysis, management and sharing	✓	✓	✓	✓
F5	Build trust and transparency between project parties	✓	✓	✓
F6	Early engagement with stakeholders and community	✓	✓	✓
F7	Innovation		✓
F8	Proper training		✓	✓	✓
F9	Build competent project team	✓	✓	✓
F10	Authority of the Project Manager		✓	✓
F11	Monitor performance		✓	✓	✓
F12	Adequate resources	✓	✓	✓	✓
F13	Realistic cost, benefit and time estimates	✓	✓	✓
F14	Adequate change management		✓	✓
F15	Political support	✓		✓
F16	Public support	✓		✓
F17	Stable economic condition
F18	Effective problem solving	✓	✓	✓	✓
F19	Clear definition of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities	✓	✓	✓	✓
F20	Teamwork and collaboration	✓	✓	✓	✓
F21	Favorable weather conditions			✓
F22	Clear scope definition	✓	✓	✓
F23	Up to date technology utilization		✓	✓	✓
F24	Sound policy, regulatory and legal framework	✓		✓	✓
F25	Knowledge sharing	✓	✓	✓
F26	Proper incentives and motivation		✓	✓
F27	Effective dispute resolution			✓
F28	Suitable project governance and organizational structure	✓	✓	✓	✓
F29	Adequate understanding of natural characteristics of the project*	✓	✓	✓
F30	Adequate use of updated and detailed input data and information	✓	✓	✓
F31	Effective procurement management		✓	✓
F32	Adequate recognition of long lifecycle of dams	✓	✓	✓	✓
F33	Modern and adequate dam safety review processes		✓	✓	✓
F34	Adequate consideration of dam re-operational strategies	✓	✓		✓
Total		22	28	31	15

*Such as site condition, geotechnical situation and topography.

Exhibit 5. Results of the three rounds of Delphi

Success Factors	Planning			Design			Construction			Operation
	N^1	Mean	S.D.^2	N	Mean	S.D.	N	Mean	S.D.	N	Mean	S.D.
1^st Round
F1	22	4.42	0.65	22	4.21	0.59	23	4.21	0.51	20	4.13	0.68
F2	22	4.33	0.64	23	4.67	0.56	23	4.71	0.55	14	3.71	0.81
F3	24	4.75	0.44	24	4.67	0.48	24	4.71	0.46	23	4.54	0.59
F4	22	4.29	0.75	23	4.58	0.58	22	4.67	0.64	22	4.25	0.61
F5	20	4.21	0.72	22	4.50	0.66	22	4.58	0.65	18	3.83	0.56
F6	21	4.58	0.83	23	4.46	0.72	20	4.21	0.83	17	3.92	0.83
F7	14	3.75	1.07	17	3.96	0.86	14	3.67	0.76	10	3.38	0.71
F8	18	3.96	0.81	19	4.21	0.78	20	4.29	0.75	21	4.38	0.82
F9	24	4.54	0.51	24	4.79	0.41	24	4.75	0.44	18	3.88	0.85
F10	14	3.63	1.01	16	3.92	1.06	18	4.08	0.97	10	3.33	1.01
F11	17	3.96	0.86	22	4.29	0.75	24	4.79	0.41	21	4.38	0.71
F12	21	4.17	0.64	23	4.58	0.58	22	4.58	0.65	21	4.38	0.71
F13	21	4.17	0.64	24	4.58	0.50	23	4.46	0.59	17	3.96	0.75
F14	13	3.54	0.88	20	4.17	0.82	22	4.54	0.66	16	4.00	0.83
F15	18	4.29	0.86	16	3.96	0.91	16	3.92	0.78	12	3.58	0.97
F16	18	4.13	0.99	14	3.71	1.08	16	3.92	0.88	15	3.79	0.83
F17	10	3.42	1.06	11	3.50	0.93	13	3.50	0.83	7	3.25	0.99
F18	19	4.17	0.87	23	4.54	0.72	23	4.54	0.72	19	4.04	0.81
F19	22	4.29	0.62	23	4.58	0.58	24	4.63	0.49	21	4.29	0.69
F20	22	4.33	0.64	23	4.63	0.58	23	4.63	0.58	20	4.17	0.70
F21	1	2.33	0.82	2	2.54	0.72	20	4.29	0.95	7	3.08	0.97
F22	20	4.17	0.92	22	4.58	0.65	23	4.71	0.55	17	3.96	0.86
F23	13	3.50	0.72	15	3.88	0.99	16	4.00	1.02	16	3.79	0.88
F24	18	4.00	0.93	17	3.92	0.83	17	3.83	0.87	20	4.08	0.78
F25	15	3.88	0.80	20	4.25	0.74	19	4.00	0.78	17	3.92	0.72
F26	9	3.33	1.01	12	3.50	1.06	18	4.08	0.97	11	3.46	0.98
F27	11	3.13	1.19	15	3.54	0.98	23	4.54	0.72	9	3.21	0.93
F28	22	4.29	0.62	23	4.42	0.58	24	4.63	0.49	18	4.04	0.75
2^nd Round
F1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	3.80	0.83
F3	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F5	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	3.80	0.70
F6	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15	3.70	0.92
F7	12	3.75	0.85	15	4.05	0.89	11	3.60	0.99	8	3.30	0.80
F8	16	3.95	1.05	18	4.35	0.81	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F9	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	14	4.00	1.03
F10	13	3.80	0.83	17	3.95	0.83	18	4.20	0.86	11	3.50	0.82
F11	15	3.75	0.64	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F12	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F13	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15	3.95	0.83
F14	12	3.80	0.77	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15	3.90	0.79
F15	20	4.75	0.44	16	3.95	1.00	16	4.05	0.83	12	3.45	1.05
F16	18	4.35	0.81	15	3.90	0.91	18	4.15	0.75	13	3.65	0.81
F17	10	3.45	0.94	12	3.50	0.89	15	3.85	0.75	9	3.40	0.88
F18	19	4.35	0.75	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	16	3.95	0.76
F19	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F20	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F21	2	2.45	0.76	3	2.50	0.83	N/A	N/A	N/A	8	3.25	0.72
F22	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	16	3.85	0.81
F23	14	3.45	0.59	16	3.80	0.69	18	4.00	0.64	17	4.00	0.56
F24	17	4.00	0.97	16	3.85	0.81	17	4.00	0.86	N/A	N/A	N/A
F25	17	4.15	0.81	N/A	N/A	N/A	17	4.00	0.73	16	3.95	0.76
F26	10	3.60	1.10	13	3.80	0.95	18	4.30	0.80	14	3.70	0.92
F27	10	3.30	1.08	14	3.50	1.08	N/A	N/A	N/A	10	3.35	0.88
F28	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	17	4.00	0.73
F29	19	4.50	0.61	20	4.95	0.22	19	4.65	0.59	11	3.50	1.10
F30	19	4.55	0.60	20	4.80	0.41	20	4.45	0.51	12	3.70	0.92
F31	12	3.60	0.94	14	4.10	0.85	20	4.65	0.49	10	3.50	0.95
F32	19	4.55	0.76	19	4.50	0.95	17	4.10	0.97	16	4.05	1.00
F33	14	3.95	0.89	18	4.45	0.69	15	4.15	0.81	17	4.35	1.14
F34	14	4.00	0.92	16	4.10	0.72	6	3.25	0.72	14	3.85	0.67
3^rd Round
F1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12	3.71	0.85
F3	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F5	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12	3.76	0.90
F6	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12	3.71	0.69
F7	14	3.88	0.70	16	4.29	0.59	13	3.94	0.66	11	3.65	0.70
F8	14	3.82	0.81	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F9	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	14	3.88	0.93
F10	13	3.94	0.83	15	4.24	0.83	N/A	N/A	N/A	11	3.59	1.12
F11	13	3.76	0.90	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F12	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F13	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	3.88	0.93
F14	14	3.94	0.75	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	3.76	1.03
F15	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	4.18	0.81	N/A	N/A	N/A	11	3.59	0.94
F16	N/A	N/A	N/A	12	3.76	1.09	N/A	N/A	N/A	10	3.59	0.87
F17	9	3.59	0.80	10	3.59	0.71	14	3.88	0.70	11	3.59	0.80
F18	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	14	4.06	0.83
F19	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F20	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F21	1	2.29	0.69	2	2.53	0.80	N/A	N/A	N/A	7	3.29	0.99
F22	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	3.88	0.78
F23	11	3.65	0.70	14	4.06	0.83	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F24	N/A	N/A	N/A	14	3.76	0.97	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F25	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13	3.88	0.78
F26	10	3.65	0.93	14	4.00	0.61	N/A	N/A	N/A	11	3.82	0.88
F27	8	3.41	0.94	11	3.76	0.97	N/A	N/A	N/A	9	3.41	0.87
F28	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F29	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	11	3.59	1.23
F30	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12	3.76	1.03
F31	10	3.65	0.79	15	4.24	0.66	N/A	N/A	N/A	11	3.82	0.73
F32	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
F33	12	3.82	0.81	N/A	N/A	N/A	17	4.53	0.51	N/A	N/A	N/A
F34	15	4.06	0.56	N/A	N/A	N/A	11	3.76	0.66	14	4.18	0.73

¹Number of experts agree or strongly agree.

²Standard deviation.

‘N/A’ is shown for the factors that consensus was reached in earlier round(s).

T-Test Analysis

The t-test was performed to ascertain whether there was a statistically significant difference between the means of the two independent groups in the panel. The test compared panel member evaluations in three categories: education (undergraduate versus postgraduate degrees); experience (total years of experience of more than 30 versus fewer than 30 years); and experience on the number of dams projects in Australia (more than 20 versus fewer than 20 projects). The analysis was done to statistically determine whether these groups varied significantly from one another.

The p-value (significant level) was chosen at 0.05. The group variance was thought to be the same and no significant difference was found if the p-value was greater than 0.05. It was determined that there was a significant difference between the two groups if the p-value was less than 0.05. The analysis’ findings for the CCSFs with notable discrepancies between the two groups’ assessments are shown in Exhibit 6. The table does not include CCSFs if there are no statistically significant differences between the respective two groups. The foundation of an independent sample t-test is the measurement of the dependent variable on an interval to satisfy independence, normality, and equal variance. The panelists’ education levels, overall experience levels, and the number of Australian dams involved are the independent variables. The score means of the CCSFs are dependent variables. Levene’s test enabled assessment of equality of the population variance.

Exhibit 6. Results of the t-test analysis

Independent Samples Test
t-test category	Project Phase	Success factor	Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
			F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
										Lower	Upper
First round
Education	Design	F21	0.04	0.85	2.23	22.00	0.04	0.61	0.28	0.04	1.19
	Construction	F26	6.12	0.02	2.69	19.83	0.01	0.89	0.33	0.20	1.57
Experience	Planning	F25	0.09	0.76	−2.57	22.00	0.02	−0.75	0.29	−1.36	−0.14
	Design	F25	0.72	0.41	−3.32	22.00	0.00	−0.83	0.25	−1.35	−0.31
	Construction	F17	2.47	0.13	−2.10	22.00	0.05	−0.67	0.32	−1.33	−0.01
	Construction	F18	3.70	0.07	−2.13	22.00	0.05	−0.58	0.27	−1.15	−0.01
	Operation	F14	2.20	0.15	−3.63	22.00	0.00	−1.00	0.28	−1.57	−0.43
	Operation	F18	2.96	0.10	−2.53	22.00	0.02	−0.75	0.30	−1.36	−0.14
	Operation	F25	2.10	0.16	−3.46	22.00	0.00	−0.83	0.24	−1.33	−0.33
Dams	Operation	F2	0.01	0.94	2.55	22.00	0.02	0.78	0.31	0.14	1.41
Second round
Education	Planning	F15	252.00	0.00	2.80	11.00	0.02	0.42	0.15	0.09	0.74
Experience	Planning	F21	2.27	0.15	−2.28	18.00	0.04	−0.70	0.31	−1.35	−0.05
	Design	F17	2.40	0.14	−3.00	18.00	0.01	−1.00	0.33	−1.70	−0.30
	Operation	F9	2.46	0.14	−2.45	18.00	0.03	−1.00	0.41	−1.86	−0.14
	Operation	F17	0.00	1.00	−3.03	18.00	0.01	−1.00	0.33	−1.69	−0.31
	Operation	F18	1.30	0.27	−3.25	18.00	0.00	−0.90	0.28	−1.48	−0.32
	Operation	F21	0.16	0.70	−2.46	18.00	0.02	−0.70	0.28	−1.30	−0.10
	Operation	F25	2.88	0.11	−2.28	18.00	0.04	−0.70	0.31	−1.35	−0.05
	Operation	F26	7.80	0.01	−2.84	11.92	0.02	−1.00	0.35	−1.77	−0.23
	Operation	F30	0.00	1.00	−2.84	18.00	0.01	−1.00	0.35	−1.74	−0.26
	Operation	F32	0.42	0.53	−2.21	18.00	0.04	−0.90	0.41	−1.75	−0.05
	Planning	F16	1.66	0.21	−2.26	18.00	0.04	−0.78	0.35	−1.51	−0.05
	Design	F8	1.66	0.21	−2.26	18.00	0.04	−0.78	0.35	−1.51	−0.05
Dams	Design	F30	36.29	0.00	−2.31	12.00	0.04	−0.31	0.13	−0.60	−0.02
Third round
Education	Design	F23	0.46	0.51	2.45	15.00	0.03	0.87	0.36	0.11	1.63
Experience	Design	F7	2.47	0.14	−2.16	15.00	0.05	−0.56	0.26	−1.11	−0.01
	Operation	F18	1.21	0.29	−3.37	15.00	0.00	−1.06	0.31	−1.72	−0.39
Dams	Operation	F15	0.30	0.59	2.61	15.00	0.02	1.12	0.43	0.20	2.03

One of the observations from Exhibit 6 is that differences exist in all categories for all three rounds. For ‘Education’ category there are 4 differences across any of the 34 CCSFs in three rounds making it the minimum difference category. For total years of experience, 19 differences were observed in three rounds making it the category with highest number of disagreements. There was no CCSFs with differences repeated in all three rounds. The operation phase has the most differences across all three categories, with 13 times, followed by the design phase with 7 times, and the planning and operation phases with 4 and 3 times, respectively.

Discussion

CSFs Over Project Lifecycle

One of the remarkable findings of this Delphi study is that ‘Effective communication’ (F3) is highly rated in all phases of dam engineering projects, implying that considerable efforts need to be exerted for achieving satisfactory communication measures. The results show that ‘Effective communication’ is the highest rated CSF for planning and operation phases and the 4^th and 5^th rated in construction and design phases respectively. Hence, we advise project practitioners to focus particularly on this CSF. Another remarkable finding is that construction phase has the highest average of the ratings of the 34 CCSFs in the last Delphi round. This implies that project team and managers must put up greater effort during the construction phase of dam engineering projects for overall success.

In planning phase of dams project development, the highest rated CSFs are ‘Effective communication’ and ‘Political support.’ This implies how important it is to address the need for proper communication and acquire support of politicians in early stage of a dam project. Hence, very careful managerial efforts are required to put in place proper communication measures at planning phase and make sure that influential political figures and parties support the project. Another highly rated CSF is ‘Early engagement with stakeholders and community.’ This is also in nature vey related to start of a project as it is important in early stage of a dam project development to ensure the project is introduced in line with outcomes that stakeholders expect. Overall, the CSFs for planning phase not only ensure success in planning phase but also have a strong view on the long-term objectives. This is also reflected in other selected CSFs for this phase such as ‘Adequate recognition of long lifecycle of dams’ and ‘Public support.’

In design phase, ‘Adequate understanding of natural characteristics of the project’ is the top-rated CSF. The average panel score for this CSF increased from 4.5 at the planning stage to 4.95 at the design stage, which indicates that the majority of panel members gave a high confidence rating of 5 on the Likert scale. ‘Adequate use of updated and detailed input data and information’ is the second rated CSF. This implies that in a complex dam project environment with highly technical matters involved, it is important from the very beginning of the design to ensure features of the dam are understood and detailed analysis are undertaken properly. ‘Build competent project team’ is another CSF that is also highly rated. This shows the importance of designing a dam with having effect of a competent team in mind. There is a significant increase from 22 to 28 CSFs selected by panel from planning to design phase. This implies the complexity of the design work of dams and the fact that as projects evolve, more dimensions are needed to be considered for success of such projects.

‘Monitor performance’ is the top-rated CSF in the construction phase. The average score of the panel is 4.79 indicating that majority of the panel members strongly agree with this being critical for construction phase. With the help of an effective performance monitoring and feedback system, project managers will be better able to foresee issues and take preventative or corrective measures, increasing the likelihood that the project will succeed by ensuring that project issues are not overlooked (Baccarini & Collins, 2003; Gioia, 1996; Jaselskis, 1990; Jiang et al., 1996). Second rated CSF is ‘Build competent project team.’ The project team should be carefully selected to ensure that they have the necessary abilities, knowledge, and credentials to carry out their duties effectively. The necessary skills, knowledge, and credentials should be determined based on the project’s goals and complexity (Baccarini & Collins, 2003; Oh & Choi, 2020). We observed significant overlap between design and construction phases with 21 common CSFs. Despite this, construction phase has 2 CSFs applicable only to this phase. These are ‘Favorable weather conditions,’ and ‘Effective dispute resolution.’ This implies the impact of weather on construction of dam projects and how disputes could negatively affect success of such projects.

In operation phase, the top rated CSF is ‘Effective communication.’ Effective communication leads to more realistic expectations, less ambiguity, and more productive teamwork (Dong et al., 2004; Oz & Sosik, 2000). For more effective communication, different communication methods should be combined (Frank Cervone, 2014; Reid et al., 2016). ‘Proper training’ is the second highest rated CSF. All dam operators must have the necessary training and experience to operate the dam. Dam surveillance is crucial for the early detection of potential dangers to dam safety so that appropriate measures can be taken. Maintaining a successful dam safety management system aimed at identifying potential risks and reducing the risk of dam failure requires proper and ongoing training of dam personnel involved in dam operation (Queensland Government, 2017).

In the context of dam engineering projects, we suggest that five CSFs require special attention. This includes the following three CSFs because they are specific to dam engineering projects:

• Adequate recognition of long lifecycle of dams

• Modern and adequate dam safety review processes

• Adequate consideration of dam re-operational strategies

and ‘Adequate risk analysis, management and sharing’ due to the fact that it is an important component of dams in Australia as all dam owners go through regular safety review and risk management of their dams portfolio; and ‘Early engagement with stakeholders and community’ due to significant impact dams have on the community. These are described in more details below.

Adequate risk analysis, management and sharing

Risk analysis is defined as effectively identifying and managing any risks and problems that could jeopardize a project’s success (Gunathilaka et al., 2013; Hickson & Owen, 2022; Shayan et al., 2022). Making decisions based on current knowledge of conditions that may or may not materialize is known as risk analysis and management (de Bakker et al., 2011). To conduct an acceptable risk analysis that will result in success of a project, the likelihood and effects of the risks should be precisely established (De Bakker et al., 2010). According to Raz et al. (2002), projects that are likely to have more related uncertainty should pay more attention to risk analysis and management. The purpose of every dam engineering project should be to minimize business and environmental risks, safeguard downstream communities, and ensure long-term efficient operations. Dams are high risk projects, and many countries including Australia have developed a specialized strategy for managing such projects’ risks (Wan & Heinrichs, 2011). This includes identifying and quantifying project risks, risk assessment of individual dams, portfolio risk assessment and developing risk mitigation measures.

Early engagement with stakeholders and community

Project stakeholders satisfaction is considered a crucial element to achieve success (Albert et al., 2017). When developing a dam project, the risk to any population it might impact must be maintained to a minimum. As part of the process of creating resilient communities within dam footprints, early and effective engagement with the community regarding the safe design, operation, and maintenance of dams serves as a vehicle for the development of trusting relationships, awareness, and mutual understanding. In the complex project environment of dams, identifying the stakeholders and how they might be influenced by the project is a difficult process.

Engaging with stakeholders is challenging in a situation where several stakeholders’ interests may conflict. We therefore propose considering each set of stakeholders and the key satisfaction indicators for each of them. Due to the conflicting interests, we advise prioritizing the stakeholders. This can be achieved by gauging their impact on the project, based on attributes such as interest and influence. A prioritization plan will help project managers allocate their time effectively and enable them to decide on the appropriate amount of interaction with various stakeholders. It is also crucial to realize that the list of stakeholders and their objectives vary as a project progresses. We stress the need of engaging with the affected communities while being aware of their values and priorities. It is also important to recognize the difficulty of understanding dam projects because they are highly technical, and the features and effects of such projects can be challenging for people to comprehend.

Adequate recognition of long lifecycle of dams

This is about acknowledgment of the fact that dams infrastructure last for long periods of time, and recognition of this fact in the engineering analysis and decision making on such projects. Sometimes, dam owners and engineers are unsure about how long their dams will last. It must be recognized that a dam’s lifespan and safety are directly correlated. A well-designed, well-built, well-maintained, and closely-monitored embankment or concrete dam can easily have a service life of more than 100 years (Wieland, 2010). Hence, it is important from early stages of projects to recognize that such structures have a long lifespan and their impacts will have a lasting effect on environment and communities they serve.

Modern and adequate dam safety review processes

This is about using the best and most recent dam safety evaluation techniques to appropriately protect the dam, human life, and properties of the people living downstream of dams. Australian dams are subject to strict legal, technical, and environmental frameworks. For instance, the New South Wales (NSW) government formed the Dams Safety NSW with regulations in place to make sure that all declared dams in NSW are designed, built and operated properly to minimizes risks to the community (NSW Government, 2019).

In order to achieve a proper dam safety review process, a holistic and compliant approach needs to be developed to reduce likelihood of risks and limit potential consequences if risks occurred. Such dam safety program needs to be a top priority over the whole lifecycle of a dam. The process needs to prioritize and balance resources and actions across whole dam portfolio so that dam owners can be confident that the right dam safety works are being completed at the right time.

Adequate consideration of dam re-operational strategies

This is defined as taking into consideration re-operational action plans that include an evaluation of the full system of pertinent infrastructure serviced by the dam. Modifying dam operations is known as “dam re-operation” which can aid in climate change adaption and support ecosystem restoration. Dam re-operation tactics are influenced by the primary operational function of dams (such as flood control, hydroelectricity, or water supply). Dam re-operation may need cross-sector cooperation or involve several dams, improving the benefits of hydropower or water supply while also achieving environmental restoration (Watts et al., 2011). Dam re-operation can help restore ecosystems by reducing the climate change impact and boosting the resilience and reliability of water supply systems. Adequate consideration of re-operating dams throughout the lifecycle is essential to restore environments that are affected by dams (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2017).

Implications for Engineering Managers

According to Ahlemann et al. (2013), project management research is still in its early stage of development and growth, and there is a pressing need to develop more maturity in engineering project management practice (Anantatmula & Rad, 2018). We acknowledge that engineering project success research is in its early stages of maturation. As it is important to assess and influence project success in early stages (Parsons, 2006), the combination of subjective and objective success factors influences the outcomes of various project components. We noted a shift toward a greater number of CSFs. Such findings are especially important in the case of complex engineering projects like dams. This research shows that only specific CCSFs determined through a systematic literature analysis are empirically established as CSFs for dam engineering projects. This study demonstrates that CSFs can vary significantly throughout the project lifecycle. This study can give engineering managers guidance on which CSFs for dam projects are empirically established in a robust manner.

This study adds to the body of knowledge in engineering management by delineating various factors influencing project success, a particularly pertinent aspect for project-centric engineering organizations. The insights derived from the Delphi technique bear significant relevance to engineering managers who are typically involved in overseeing intricate and multidimensional projects. In contrast to earlier studies that mainly concentrated solely on identifying CSFs within specific project phases, the findings of this study expand upon existing literature by encompassing the entire lifecycle of dam engineering projects. Dam engineering projects are integral to engineering management practice. Engineering project managers can then focus on a specific set of CSFs for each project phase and direct their efforts more precisely to aid in project success. This research helps with bridging the gap between academia, industry and policy makers.

Limitations, Recommendations, and Future Research

The approach used to identify CCSFs is one of this study’s limitations. We chose to derive the candidate factors from the studies on closely related forms of infrastructure because there was a dearth of prior literature and associated research on CSFs unique to dams. The systematic literature review was not limited to any specific geographical locations. We adopted Delphi method as well to identify CCSFs instead of relying only on literature search. The Delphi study was conducted with participation of Australian dam engineering projects practitioners. There are undoubtedly geographically specific CSFs for success of such projects in other countries. As a result, findings of this research may not be readily applied to other geographical locations as CSFs may be different in other countries and industries. Another limitation is that it is unknown yet how different levels of presence of the identified CSFs in projects will lead to different levels of success. Hence, further study is needed to investigate how CSFs and project success criteria are related for different phases of such projects. Survey research is advised to achieve this with participation from experts in dam engineering projects.

Conclusion

Many dam engineering literatures identify severe underperformance as a challenge that such projects encounter. This is ubiquitous around the world, including the dam engineering projects in Australia. Identifying project success factors is a crucial first step in tackling such a problem. If dam project practitioners could effectively affect project performance, they may not only minimize project failure but also increase the overall benefits provided to the community. In this research, results of a systematic literature review and Delphi technique were used to adequately apply a set of CSFs over lifecycle of dam engineering projects. As a result, 28 success factors were identified from the systematic literature review plus 6 factors suggested by the Delphi panel members making a total 34 potential factors. Three rounds of Delphi technique were conducted to determine which factors are critical for success in different project phases. Additionally, a 2-sample independent t-test was conducted to see if there was any evidence of a significant difference in the mean values provided by the two respondent groups for each success criteria addressed. Among the 238 t-test results from the four project phases, in three Delphi rounds, 28 were below the significance threshold of 0.05.

The set of CSFs in this study serves as a guide for project practitioners undertaking dam engineering project in Australia. The results of this study define the most important success factors that influence the success of dam engineering projects in Australia and outline how they evolve throughout the course of a project. This study should make it possible for project practitioners to create a set of principles and actions for making decisions that will maximize the success of dam engineering projects. The findings of this study give project managers a practical guide to help them better implement dam engineering projects. It enables engineering project managers and teams to pinpoint the factors that are necessary to achieve success in their projects and to exert more efforts on those factors. We anticipate that this study will also act as a starting point for further research in this area. It paves the way for similar studies in other industries and geographical locations with focus on lifecycle project success.

Acknowledgment

This research is supported by Research Training Program of ‘Department of Education and Training’ of the Australian Commonwealth Government.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pouya Amies

Pouya Amies is a Civil Engineer specializing in Project Management, Dams and Hydro-Power Engineering. He completed Bachelor of Civil Engineering in 2000 from Shahrood University of Technology and Master of Engineering Science (Project Management) in 2015 from University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney). He currently works as Technical Director - Dams for Aurecon and at the same time undertakes his PhD in Engineering at Western Sydney University.

Xiaohua Jin

Dr. Xiaohua Jin is the Director of Project Management Programs and the Deputy Director of the Centre for Smart Modern Construction at Western Sydney University. He conducts research in the field of construction management and economics. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles in renowned journals and conferences and obtained competitive research grants/awards from international funding bodies and industry. He supervises doctoral students. He is also a joint coordinator of Conseil International du Bâtiment (CIB).

Sepani Senaratne

Dr. Sepani Senaratne is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment at Western Sydney University. She has diverse academic experience in quantity surveying, construction and project management disciplines. Sepani is an active researcher and has widely published in leading journals and conferences in the Built Environment. Sepani’s work is internationally recognized by several research awards. She is actively serving the academic community with several leading roles.